Pandemic Response Officers: Integration Between Medical, Public Health, and Higher Education Systems to Expedite Prevention and Response.

CONTEXT: Research and policy studies alike have enumerated population and community health benefits of system integration between medical, public health, and social entities. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the necessity of a well-trained and adequately staffed public health and medical workforce in order to process SARS-CoV-2 cases and prevent subsequent transmission. Higher education systems, in particular, represented defined populations of exposure and transmission. Opportunities existed for collaboration and task sharing between institutions of higher education and local public health departments to limit spread and impacts. PROGRAM: This article describes the Pandemic Response Officer (PRO) program at Cornell University, a team of staff and students created during the intensity of the pandemic to benefit the Tompkins County and Cornell University communities. IMPLEMENTATION: The PRO program was formed in January 2021, with an original team of 8 individuals, working iteratively to investigate and support employee cases and exposures. Implementation was motivated by Cornell University's dual responsibility as a large employer that also possessed SARS-CoV-2 test results of employees. PROs loaded case information into a shared HIPPA-compliant electronic record that collected information for case notification, case investigation, isolation support, contact tracing, contact notification, and quarantine support. Over time, the PROs grew to a team of 25, gaining responsibilities as university and public health systems shared roles to maximize resources. EVALUATION: From January 1 to December 31, 2021, PROs managed 773 employee and 2943 student cases. During the Omicron surge (November 28-December 31, 2021), PROs saved the public health department an estimated 2797 hours of effort, equating to more than 10 professionals working full-time, evenings and weekends, to process cases and contacts during this interval. DISCUSSION: By integrating efforts between a university and public health agency, this intervention minimized SARS-CoV-2 transmission via expedient case support and alleviated strain on public health systems by expanding the public health workforce.

Public values, health inequality, and alternative notions of a "fair" response.

The fact that disadvantaged people generally die younger and suffer more disease than those with more resources is gaining ground as a major policy concern in the United States. Yet we know little about how public values inform public opinion about policy interventions to address these disparities. This article presents findings from an exploratory study of the public's values and priorities as they relate to social inequalities in health. Forty-three subjects were presented with a scenario depicting health inequalities by social class and were given the opportunity to alter the distribution of health outcomes. Participants' responses fell into one of three distributive preferences: (1) prioritize the disadvantaged, (2) equalize health outcomes between advantaged and disadvantaged groups, and (3) equalize health resources between advantaged and disadvantaged groups. These equality preferences were reflected in participants' responses to a second, more complex scenario in which trade-offs with other health-related values - maximizing health and prioritizing the sickest - were introduced. In most cases, participants moderated their distributive preferences to accommodate these other health goals, particularly to prioritize the allocation of resources to the very sick regardless of their socioeconomic status.